Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of manga published in English by Tokyopop


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Nandesuka 16:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

List of manga published in English by Tokyopop
Obsolete, entire list has been categorized into Category:Tokyopop. Deproded by Kappa with no reason given. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC) I've added the similarly categorized: List of manga published by VIZ Media that was also de-prodded to this AfD. (Same list, same topic, different company.) --Kunzite 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, a plain, unstructured list does not render an annotated, structured list obsolete. Kappa 13:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The list is neither annotated nor structured any differently from the category. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Both lists are annotated, and the Viz list is currently well-structured. The other list previously had some structure, I think I'll go put it back. Kappa 23:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete What on this list could not be represented by a category? I see nothing. --Kunzite 15:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - between List of manga and Category:Tokyopop this page is fairly redundant. Shiroi Hane 15:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note:List of manga published by VIZ Media added at this point. --Kunzite 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Red links are possible on a list, "entire list" is not on in the catagory as there are red links. This is an advantage of lists. The list could be improved to better take advantage of the list format, but that's another matter LinaMishima 17:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what this page is for: Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga. Secondly-- are they all notable? Some of them are perhaps sequels or related works that are covered in main articles. Others may be name variations which are unlinked. --Kunzite 18:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You asked what on this list could not be represented by a category, "sequels and related works", and "name variations" are exactly the kind of thing lists do well and categories do badly. Kappa 18:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, I remember where I've seen your name... You're the editor who de-prods everything. Lists do them just as badly. There was a redlink on the Anime list for Cyber City Oedo.  The article was named Cyber City Oedo 808. Most name variations are not important--they'll come up in a search as name variations are supposed to be linked and require redirects to be made. Entries are often made to these lists with no research or searching of the wiki for prior articles what-so-ever.  If there is something particularly in need of a variation, the redirect can be categorized.  Anime is an extraordinarily well covered topic on Wikipedia--converting these vanilla lists in to categories is no detriment to the wikipedia. --Kunzite 19:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely making them less vanilla then would be far better than simply deleting them? The topic page system uses lists, and lists can feature a brief one-sentance description of a subject (whereas currently, catagories cannot - something to change?) LinaMishima 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And? These are list of things publsihed by someone. Do we keep a list of book published by Random House? List of academic journals published by Elsevier? Notable anime and Notable names in anime which are two lists which serve thier purposes well.  These two are nothing but list cruft. --Kunzite 22:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Many name variations are important because someone might know a title under only one of those names, eg. English/Japanese, or Tenchi Muyo vs No Need For Tenchi. Categorizing a redirect is an obscure trick and means that the the target will show up twice in the category. Kappa 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Redlinks were moved to the centralized Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga as part of the categorization process. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Valrith 17:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete but comment, should the category simply be "Tokyopop"? I would feel more comfortable with something along the lines of "Works published (or maybe licensed) by Tokyopop" as the category.--SeizureDog 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete (changed vote). Between redlinks on Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga and categories, these two lists are seem to be redundant. --GunnarRene 03:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The ADV releases category was deleted, but we have Tokyopop and VIZ media categories. Why? Should these not be consistent with each other? My opinion here is Either released-by lists or categories, not both. --GunnarRene 14:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Look, we have plenty of lists like this. List of Square Enix games, List of ADV releases are just 2 examples. I categorized all the items on the list. The list itself it nowhere near complete, TOKOPOP has 404 print titles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Request pages are TOOLS. Once an article is created, they are removed from the listing. Lists such as this are more permanent, well, listing of the subject. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, once an article is created, it is removed from the request page listing -- and automatically added to the category listing. Manually-maintained lists of articles are thus redundant. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ADV releases should be removed and categorized. And they would be categorized into the various sub categories.. Including publisher. Why do we need a list of books published by a company? What purpose does it serve? It's having lists for the point of having lists. --Kunzite 19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of anime & manga deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to a category. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant to a category. BlueValour 23:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per various discussions above. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  23:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This category would have never been populated without a list like this (that's exactly what happened by the way). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So the list served its purpose and now must move on to a higher existence. Wikipedia is constantly changing, and articles that were useful once are superceded by other articles, categories, and so on. This isn't the first article to have this happen, and it likely won't be the last. As for whether or not a Tokyopop category could have been populated without this list, that's just absurd. Plenty of categories haave been populated without a list existing beforehand. Certainly, the list made it easier to populate the category, but that doesn't mean it would have been impossible to do so without the list. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  23:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not entirely. I went through Category:Manhwa and added Tokyopop to the correct entries. There are also other ways to get the list of items by a certain publisher: OCLC amazon.com or the publisher's website. --Kunzite 23:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TheFarix (Talk) 02:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete surprised to see this much discussion for something that's obviously redundant listcruft. Opabinia regalis 04:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.